Posted on 11/04/2010 2:49:14 PM PDT by lbryce
In fact, in some limited segments (such as the jewelry industry), parties sometimes resort to the Rabbinic courts even when one or both sides aren’t Jewish. You can go to court and spend $500,000 fighting a case for 4 years. Or you can go before 3 rabbis, spend $15,000, and get a decision in 4 weeks. And, particularly in the jewelry industry, the sheer number of claims that have arisen over the last few decades has given some rabbinic arbitraters a kind of factual expertise that most judges lack.
This idea was intended to curb the excesses of the Warren Court. It never had a chance of getting through Congress, so state legislaures began petitioning Congress for a Convention for Proposing Amendments under Article V of the Constitution to consider this concept. A fair number of states went on the record requesting Congress for a Convention, but the movement ran out of steam after Earl Warren's departure. They never got anywhere near the two-thirds threshold necessary to prompt a convention call.
“All you need is for all parties to agree to a binding arbitration agreement.”
That is regardless of the source of the law, religous or otherwise. My point is you cannot force such a thing nor can that arbitration violate civil rights of any kind.
A similar idea, I will grant, but aimed in a different direction. The SCOTUS does need to remain at the top, despite being “one heartbeat” from becoming a liberal court.
(N.B.: A talk show host in the northwest was so upset that he called for the killing of some conservative SCOTUS justices on his blog right after the election. Even his followers were taken aback, so he had to pretend that what he had said was just “sarcasm”.)
But be that as it may, the idea of a Second Court corrects a whole assortment of problems at the federal level in one fell swoop. Being designed after the US senate model, it corrects the mistake of the 17th Amendment.
It also effectively brings about judicial reform by nullifying the decisions of judicial activists. And it acts as a way for the States to easily challenge federal laws, directives, regulations, mandates, executive orders, “czars”, federal judicial orders and special masters.
So it resurrects the 10th Amendment, and even the 9th Amendment, in that unenumerated rights are restored when federal overreach is reduced.
And yet, after it all, what the Second Court decides *might* still be appealed to the SCOTUS, but it has to be under the onus of disapproval from the individual States. There might even be a fifty percent, two-thirds, and three-quarters rule as to how the SCOTUS is allowed to deal with Second Court decisions.
In common use, the least that would be expected of the SCOTUS is that if the Second Court removed a case from federal jurisdiction, if the SCOTUS wanted to put it back under federal jurisdiction, it would have to very precisely state the original intent of the constitution to do so, not extrapolations or interpolations, or the precedent of federal courts.
Heard this lady on Hannity today, she is great.
Brigitte Gabriel (born October 21, 1964) is a Lebanese American journalist, author, and activist. Gabriel says Islam keeps Arab countries backward, and teaches terrorism. In order to promote such views, Gabriel founded the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America so that citizens may “Fearlessly speak out in defense of America, Israel and Western civilization.”
http://www.hannity.com/guest/gabriel-brigitte/10909
I’m glad we aren’t in the 9th circus court or they would immediately stop what 80% of the people want.
Not too many decades ago the front porch of a family not wanted in our community learned to fly. Shortly after this very unusual event they left for parts unknown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.